• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump confirms plan to declare national emergency and use military for deportations

 
 
 
RVonse said:
Patooka said:
With regard to the OP, there is a very real chance none of this is going to happen. I'll explain why;

Back in 2013, Australia had a Federal election. Kevin Rudd was leader for Labour (for the second time) and Tony Abbott was leader of The Coalition. To use very simplistic comparisons, Labor is like the Democrats, The Coalition is like the Republicans. And to add some further context, that fucking cunt Rupert Murdoch has an even tighter strangle hold on Australia's news outlets than he does in America. One of the Newspapers Mudroch (fucking cunt) owns is The Daily Telegraph.

In the 10 weeks leading up to the election, a radio host named Ray Hadley (think Sean Hannity with less charisma) posted a "Top 10 important stories from this week" every Friday in the editorial section of the newspaper. This was then copied into The Australian, and also read out on radio stations like 2UE, 2GB and Macquarie Radio. And every week, the 1st story was always a running tally on ,"the number of asylum seekers who have invaded Australia because Kevin Rudd believes in open borders". I'm sure to everyone here has heard familiar rhetoric during the last election in the US.

Then the election occurred, Rudd lost handily and Abbott became Prime Minister. Literally overnight every Murdoch (fucking cunt) news outlet stopped reporting on the invasion of boat people and Ray Hadley's top 10 editorial once again became predications on who would win the footy on the weekend. The change of tone was so pronounced it was fucking jarring. Abbott then appointed a guy named Scott Morrison as his Immigration Minister.

A few months later, Morrison claimed victory and stated loudly and proudly that he has stopped the boats. And everybody agreed. Even Labor agreed, which was fucking stupid of them.

Because the reality wasn't the boats were stopped, it was the Abbott government stopped releasing any information about them.

So what does this mean with regards to Trump? I think we can all agree Trump is a lazy cunt. The fucker has never done a full days work in his life. The US media is already in his back pocket - I fucking gaurantee you will not here anything about the border from any news outlet until just before the mid terms, like what happened in Australia incidentally. And mass deportations is a huge logistical task - Trump doesn't have the brains or the stamina to follow through. It would be far simpler for him to sack all the people in government reporting on border crossing than it is actually fixing the problem.


So TLDR; I think it is possible Trump will order Musk to eviscerate the CBP, have a bunch of fake military parades happen in Texas because he loves that shit, and then a few months later when the number of incidents at the border nose dives because there's no border patrol anymore the media will call it a success and claim Trump has changed and he is actually being presidential this time around.

And too many people are going to fucking fall for it, again.
Click to expand...
I had no idea Australia had immigration issues. Where are all of your immigrants coming from? Until reading your post, I had always thought that immigration policy of Australia was extremely strict and almost impossible even for people with skills and education.
Click to expand...
It's not very easy to get in to Australia lawfully, but it's far from impossible. We have international treaty obligations to allow refugees to come here, and despite their awful treatment by successive governments for internal political reasons, many do so.

Most immigrants in Australia (including me) came here from the UK; Between them, five countries: UK, NZ, China, Italy, and Vietnam account for over 45% of all foreign-born residents. Italian migration was huge post WWII, and modern Italian migrants are often family members of people in that community; Similarly, Vietnamese people came here in large numbers following the American War in the 1960s and '70s, in which Australia fought as an ally of the US.

The number of people here unlawfully is tiny. According to the Commonwealth Government:

Unlawful Non-Citizens in Australia

Australia’s Unlawful Non-Citizen (UNC) population is the number of people at a given point in time who remain in Australia after their visa has expired or been cancelled.

Australia’s UNC population at 30 June 2023 was estimated at 69,900 people, slightly more than the 66,800 people estimated at 30 June 2022—an accumulated estimate of more than 70 years of regulated migration.7

More than eight-in-ten (83.7 per cent) of UNCs in Australia at 30 June 2023 arrived on one of the following visa categories:

  • Visitor—an estimated 40,000 people (57.3 per cent)
  • Student—an estimated 12,300 people (17.7 per cent)
  • 8
  • Temporary Resident—an estimated 4300 people (6.2 per cent)
  • Working Holiday—an estimated 1700 people (2.5 per cent).

Almost one-third (32.3 per cent) of UNCs estimated at 30 June 2023 were citizens of the following countries:

  • People’s Republic of China—an estimated 10,300 people (14.8 per cent)
  • Malaysia—an estimated 6500 people (9.2 per cent)
  • Unites States of America—an estimated 5800 people (8.3 per cent).

Of the 69,900 UNCs in Australia at 30 June 2023:
  • 48,500 (69.4 per cent) were male
  • 21,500 (30.8 per cent) were female.

7 Most UNCs—people at a given point in time who remain in Australia after their visa has expired or been cancelled—only overstay their visa for a short period before departing voluntarily. There is constant movement into and out of the UNC pool as people overstay their visas and as peoples’ status is resolved, for example through departure or removal. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100.
Click to expand...
- Note: The typo "Unites States of America" appears in the original pdf as published

So we have fewer than 70,000 unlawful immigrants here at any given time; And the vast majority are people here on vacation, who decide to stay a bit longer than their visitor visa allows.

The "traditional" view amongst Australian racists, of UNCs as "boat people" who come here intending to stay forever, and are not "real refugees" but instead are "economic migrants" from poor backgrounds, is utterly wrong.

The typical UNC is an American backpacker who arrived by plane four months ago on a three month visa, and is working illegally as a Barista in Byron Bay* because they are having too much fun surfing to go home yet; Or a Chinese student who failed their exams and dares not go home to face the wrath of their wealthy parents, who paid a lot of money for them to study here, just yet.

Both types typically go home after a few extra months here (often because they are caught and deported by the authorities).








* You can't throw an organic gluten-free chia seed and quinoa bagel in Byron Bay, without hitting a young person from the US, UK, NZ or Canada who is working illegally, typically while lawfully here on a visitor visa which prohibits any paid employment.
 
Last edited:
RVonse said:
ZiprHead said:
Derec said:
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Republicans. They consider asylum seekers to be illegals, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the Democrats too. It is criminal of them to protect and harbor other criminals in their safe cities. So either change the law so that these newcomers are not criminals or enforce the law and evict the criminals. You can not have a civilized society if you do not know what the rules really are.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the law pertaining to the bolded?
 
Republicans run the major corporations (meet processors, hotel chains, etc…) that have imported the migrant labor. But it is the Democrats’ fault when Joe Six Pack perceives that all the migrants that work at the packing plant are ruining the town. Reality is that the Republicans want them here and to be without proper papers. They want them here but they want the threat of deportation to keep them in line. It is going to be a bit of an own goal if Trump follows through and really fucks up the labor supply.
 
RVonse said:
I had no idea Australia had immigration issues. Where are all of your immigrants coming from? Until reading your post, I had always thought that immigration policy of Australia was extremely strict and almost impossible even for people with skills and education.
Click to expand...
Trust me - you say you read my post but you sure as shit didn't understand it. My point is conservatives always ALWAYS manufacture an illegal immigration crisis in an election cycle. And people like yourself fall for it every single fucking time. Like America, Australia has imaginary immigration issues. I am very confidant that by April or June next year, you will start a thread with a clip of Jimmy Dore proudly proclaiming Trump "fixed" the boarder whilst never understanding all that happened was Leon and Smarmy sacked everyone who did the reporting in the Customs Boarder Patrol - all in the name of efficiency.
 
Well, since Trump finally admitted that it will be very hard to lower grocery prices, just wait until he deports most of the immigrants who work in the farm industry or meat packing plants and see how high grocery prices become. I think I will stock up on beans so I will at least have something healthy and affordable to eat until the lunatic's term is over.
 
southernhybrid said:
Well, since Trump finally admitted that it will be very hard to lower grocery prices, just wait until he deports most of the immigrants who work in the farm industry or meat packing plants and see how high grocery prices become. I think I will stock up on beans so I will at least have something healthy and affordable to eat until the lunatic's term is over.
Click to expand...
He may have to also admit that it will be very hard to deport all those workers though.

Once they get their tax cuts done they may not have much enthusiasm left to do much else except start FBI investigations of all their political rivals.

What incentive does Trump have to actually do all the things he told his voters he would do?
 
southernhybrid said:
Well, since Trump finally admitted that it will be very hard to lower grocery prices, just wait until he deports most of the immigrants who work in the farm industry or meat packing plants and see how high grocery prices become. I think I will stock up on beans so I will at least have something healthy and affordable to eat until the lunatic's term is over.
Click to expand...
Both candidates were doing that "lower prices" thing. Which was utterly ridiculous. It wasn't possible.

But yeah, if Trump does move forward with mass deportations, that will impact fruit, veggie, and meat prices as worker shortages will be notable. Meat packing companies can't find enough legal workers to begin with. They don't under pay in that industry, it is just a real tough job and particularly dangerous to the digits. Out of sight, out of mind, though.

Still awaiting see just what Trump does in his Presidency. He kind of promised a great number of things. His first term didn't end with much done, other than rubber stamping judges. Musk and Ramaswamey are czar level folks that have no power at all, and lack the experience to actually figure out cuts. So it is possible the second term of Trump could be benign, but mentally painful to endure. Nominating Patel and Gaetz and Gabbard wasn't the best start though to a benign administration, especially as this asshole is looking to put Ivanka or Lara up for election in 2028.
 
Shadowy Man said:
southernhybrid said:
Well, since Trump finally admitted that it will be very hard to lower grocery prices, just wait until he deports most of the immigrants who work in the farm industry or meat packing plants and see how high grocery prices become. I think I will stock up on beans so I will at least have something healthy and affordable to eat until the lunatic's term is over.
Click to expand...
He may have to also admit that it will be very hard to deport all those workers though.

Once they get their tax cuts done they may not have much enthusiasm left to do much else except start FBI investigations of all their political rivals.

What incentive does Trump have to actually do all the things he told his voters he would do?
Click to expand...
The talking out of the Senate implies the filibuster isn't going away. Which means naming Post Offices, budget reconciliation bill(s), and continuing resolutions for budgets. They need to end the filibuster to pass anything else.
 
Shadowy Man said:
RVonse said:
I believe we should have an upper age limit on the POTUS job, Trump is clearly too old.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there’s no dearth of young right wingers who gleefully spout the same (and in some cases worse) ridiculous rhetoric as Trump.
Click to expand...
But at least those people can probably can remember what they said a few months ago.
ZiprHead said:
RVonse said:
ZiprHead said:
Derec said:
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Republicans. They consider asylum seekers to be illegals, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the Democrats too. It is criminal of them to protect and harbor other criminals in their safe cities. So either change the law so that these newcomers are not criminals or enforce the law and evict the criminals. You can not have a civilized society if you do not know what the rules really are.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the law pertaining to the bolded?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.
Harboring a fugitive is a criminal offense that involves knowingly providing assistance to an individual who has committed a crime and is attempting to evade arrest or prosecution by law enforcement.

You can not have a federal government going after their criminals which are then harbored by local governments and not expect anything except choas. Either change the laws or stop circumventing federal laws.
 
RVonse said:
Shadowy Man said:
RVonse said:
I believe we should have an upper age limit on the POTUS job, Trump is clearly too old.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there’s no dearth of young right wingers who gleefully spout the same (and in some cases worse) ridiculous rhetoric as Trump.
Click to expand...
But at least those people can probably can remember what they said a few months ago.
Click to expand...
My experience is that those people will say whatever they need to at whatever moment that is politically advantageous to them. There is definitely a number of them who will say the exact opposite of what they've said months ago, even if they do remember it. Pete Hegseth is a great example now that he's going against what he said about women in the military now that he needs a ex-military woman's vote for confirmation.

Of all the issues to take with Trump's unfitness for the Presidency, I find his age to be a relatively minor one.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
southernhybrid said:
Well, since Trump finally admitted that it will be very hard to lower grocery prices, just wait until he deports most of the immigrants who work in the farm industry or meat packing plants and see how high grocery prices become. I think I will stock up on beans so I will at least have something healthy and affordable to eat until the lunatic's term is over.
Click to expand...
Both candidates were doing that "lower prices" thing. Which was utterly ridiculous. It wasn't possible.

But yeah, if Trump does move forward with mass deportations, that will impact fruit, veggie, and meat prices as worker shortages will be notable. Meat packing companies can't find enough legal workers to begin with. They don't under pay in that industry, it is just a real tough job and particularly dangerous to the digits. Out of sight, out of mind, though.

Still awaiting see just what Trump does in his Presidency. He kind of promised a great number of things. His first term didn't end with much done, other than rubber stamping judges. Musk and Ramaswamey are czar level folks that have no power at all, and lack the experience to actually figure out cuts. So it is possible the second term of Trump could be benign, but mentally painful to endure. Nominating Patel and Gaetz and Gabbard wasn't the best start though to a benign administration, especially as this asshole is looking to put Ivanka or Lara up for election in 2028.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was my point. I didn't read it myself, but Mr. Sohy said that a meat packing place in Missouri was raided to remove undocumented immigrants and after they removed them all, the place couldn't find enough people to work there. This might have happened many years ago when he was living in Missouri. I didn't ask him when it happened, but that is exactly what will happen if Trump does deport huge numbers of undocumented immigrants who work in the food industry. For that matter, I personally knew one who works as a cook in a Mexican restaurant and there are a huge number of Mexican restaurants in the South. ( actually Tex-Mex ). People seem to love that type of food, so without such workers, these restaurants may have problems finding workers too.

Yet Trump supporters aren't ready to see the truth. Between the labor shortages, the tariffs and the need to import more food, since it will be difficult to grow or process it here, the prices will likely increase a lot.

It is possible as you say that things won't be as bad as we fear, but if his cabinet members are approved, we are certainly in for a very bumpy ride as few are qualified for the positions Trump wants them to do. Their main qualifications are they are Trump suckers. And sadly, it doesn't appear as if many if any of the Republicans in the Senate have the balls to deny Trump his cabinet picks. The MAGA cult isn't over yet.
 
RVonse said:
Shadowy Man said:
RVonse said:
I believe we should have an upper age limit on the POTUS job, Trump is clearly too old.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there’s no dearth of young right wingers who gleefully spout the same (and in some cases worse) ridiculous rhetoric as Trump.
Click to expand...
But at least those people can probably can remember what they said a few months ago.
ZiprHead said:
RVonse said:
ZiprHead said:
Derec said:
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Republicans. They consider asylum seekers to be illegals, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the Democrats too. It is criminal of them to protect and harbor other criminals in their safe cities. So either change the law so that these newcomers are not criminals or enforce the law and evict the criminals. You can not have a civilized society if you do not know what the rules really are.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the law pertaining to the bolded?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.
Harboring a fugitive is a criminal offense that involves knowingly providing assistance to an individual who has committed a crime and is attempting to evade arrest or prosecution by law enforcement.

You can not have a federal government going after their criminals which are then harbored by local governments and not expect anything except choas. Either change the laws or stop circumventing federal laws.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm not understanding your claim, but undocumented immigrants aren't criminals just for coming here illegally.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...an/being-undocumented-immigrant-us-not-crime/

They can be deported, but being here undocumented, by over staying a visa etc. is a civic offense, not a criminal one, unless something has changed that I'm unaware of. I think if one is deported and then returns, that might be a misdemeanor, not a serious crime. And undocumented immigrants commit actual crimes at about a rate of 50% less compared to American citizens.

Albany Mayor Kathy M. Sheehan said in a national television interview that it’s not a crime for immigrants to live in the U.S. without documentation.

Sheehan, a Democrat, was defending her city’s status as a so-called "sanctuary city" to Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The city's law enforcement officials do not report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities unless they commit a serious crime.

"Simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime," Sheehan said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has said that."

Carlson was left baffled.

"You just said that being here illegally is not illegal? I’m not aware of that Supreme Court decision," Carlson said. "How is that true?"

"In Arizona v. the United States, the Supreme Court said simply being here undocumented is not a crime," she said. "There are civil violations and then there are criminal violations."

So, who’s right? Sheehan or Carlson?

What’s Sheehan talking about?

The Supreme Court case Sheehan cited involved a 2010 challenge to an Arizona immigration law from the Obama administration.

The law required that immigrants carry documents proving their status in Arizona. Police were also instructed to stop and seek documents from anyone they suspected of being undocumented. Those without documents faced a state criminal charge.

The Obama administration contended Arizona could not create a state level criminal charge for the violation because it’s already regulated by Congress.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration and struck down that section of the Arizona law, among other parts.

Civil or criminal

Experts supported Sheehan’s claim by pointing out how the U.S. legal system works.

People who break the law in the U.S. have committed either a criminal or civil violation depending on how the law defines it and how prosecutors choose to proceed.

Being in the U.S. without documentation is considered a civil matter, said Nancy Morawetz, professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law.

"Being present in the U.S., that status, is not a crime," Morawetz said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RVonse said:
ZiprHead said:
Derec said:
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Republicans. They consider asylum seekers to be illegals, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the Democrats too. It is criminal of them to protect and harbor other criminals in their safe cities. So either change the law so that these newcomers are not criminals or enforce the law and evict the criminals. You can not have a civilized society if you do not know what the rules really are.
Click to expand...
The problem here is with "harbor"--that's not what's going on. Rather, the local authorities realize that society works better when illegals don't fear contact with law enforcement. They don't interfere with immigration authorities but they take no part in their actions so the people don't fear them. And sometimes the federal government does not respect this and try to circumvent the rules which has resulted in some states blocking big chunks of data to keep the feds from using some piece of it.
 
RVonse said:
Axulus said:
President-elect Donald Trump on Monday confirmed he would declare a national emergency to carry out his campaign promise of mass deportations of migrants living in the U.S. without legal permission.

Overnight, Trump responded to a social media post from Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, who said earlier this month there are reports the incoming administration is preparing such a declaration and to use "military assets" to deport the migrants.

“TRUE!!!” Trump wrote.
Click to expand...

truthsocial.com

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.
truthsocial.com truthsocial.com

abcnews.go.com

Trump confirms plan to declare national emergency, use military for mass deportations

President-elect Donald Trump is emphasizing his plan to declare a national emergency to carry out his campaign promise of mass deportations.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

Remember, he also declared that the deportations are going to be a bloodbath.

Not one single journalist or podcaster asked him how he is going to respect the constitution and, in particular, the 4th amendment, when carrying out the deportation plan. More proof that Trump and his followers couldn't give two shits about the constitution.
Click to expand...
It is just outrageous that our government should follow a recent public mandate and actually enforce and follow the law!
Click to expand...
Except he's not. He's making it very clear he intends to shit on the Constitution and throw out the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
 
RVonse said:
Shadowy Man said:
RVonse said:
I believe we should have an upper age limit on the POTUS job, Trump is clearly too old.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there’s no dearth of young right wingers who gleefully spout the same (and in some cases worse) ridiculous rhetoric as Trump.
Click to expand...
But at least those people can probably can remember what they said a few months ago.
ZiprHead said:
RVonse said:
ZiprHead said:
Derec said:
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Republicans. They consider asylum seekers to be illegals, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the Democrats too. It is criminal of them to protect and harbor other criminals in their safe cities. So either change the law so that these newcomers are not criminals or enforce the law and evict the criminals. You can not have a civilized society if you do not know what the rules really are.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the law pertaining to the bolded?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.
Harboring a fugitive is a criminal offense that involves knowingly providing assistance to an individual who has committed a crime and is attempting to evade arrest or prosecution by law enforcement.

You can not have a federal government going after their criminals which are then harbored by local governments and not expect anything except choas. Either change the laws or stop circumventing federal laws.
Click to expand...
It is illegal to help them avoid capture. It's not illegal to interact with someone you know to be a fugitive. The states are not helping them avoid capture, they are just refusing to participate in trying to capture as they have concluded (rightly, I think) that that causes more overall harm.
 
The two overriding constants in the ideologies of Trump and the billionaires who prop him up are GRIFT and GRAFT. For all their whines, the Trump family and their fellow travelers are all about personal power and MONEY $$$ MONEY $$$ MONEY $$$ MONEY $$$.
southernhybrid said:
... a meat packing place in Missouri was raided to remove undocumented immigrants and after they removed them all, the place couldn't find enough people to work there.
Click to expand...
Don't worry; there are no plans to shut down ALL those who employ undocumented immigrants. Enforcement will be selective, focused against businesses who do not pay tithes to the fascist overlords.
 
RVonse said:
Shadowy Man said:
RVonse said:
I believe we should have an upper age limit on the POTUS job, Trump is clearly too old.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there’s no dearth of young right wingers who gleefully spout the same (and in some cases worse) ridiculous rhetoric as Trump.
Click to expand...
But at least those people can probably can remember what they said a few months ago.
ZiprHead said:
RVonse said:
ZiprHead said:
Derec said:
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Republicans. They consider asylum seekers to be illegals, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the Democrats too. It is criminal of them to protect and harbor other criminals in their safe cities. So either change the law so that these newcomers are not criminals or enforce the law and evict the criminals. You can not have a civilized society if you do not know what the rules really are.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the law pertaining to the bolded?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.
Harboring a fugitive is a criminal offense that involves knowingly providing assistance to an individual who has committed a crime and is attempting to evade arrest or prosecution by law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Oh, look. Perry Mason arrived.

No one is obligated to assist a law enforcement entity under penalty of law. No one is stopping the federal law enforcement. Did you get your juris doctorate at the 2+2=5 School Of Law?

RVonse said:
You can not have a federal government going after their criminals which are then harbored by local governments and not expect anything except choas. Either change the laws or stop circumventing federal laws.
Click to expand...
Really?

From your own link:
Some studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and stronger economies than comparable non-sanctuary cities. In 2016 the Washington Post reported that "decades of research actually shows that immigrants – whether legal or illegal – tend to have lower crime rates. Similarly, a 2017 report by the Center for American Progress concluded that, "Statistical analysis illustrates that across a range of social and economic indicators, sanctuary counties perform better than comparable nonsanctuary counties. A 2017 'Review of the Research on “Sanctuary Cities” and Crime' in Sociology Compass concluded that, 'The few empirical studies that exist illustrate a “null” or negative relationship between these policies and crime.'

Sanctuary city policies substantially reduce deportations of illegal immigrants who do not have criminal records, but have no impact on those who have violent criminal records. Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law, and that sanctuary cities increase crime. Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities, and that law enforcement resources can be prioritized towards better purposes.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like chaos to me. Actually it sounds quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:
ZiprHead said:
RVonse said:
Shadowy Man said:
RVonse said:
I believe we should have an upper age limit on the POTUS job, Trump is clearly too old.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there’s no dearth of young right wingers who gleefully spout the same (and in some cases worse) ridiculous rhetoric as Trump.
Click to expand...
But at least those people can probably can remember what they said a few months ago.
ZiprHead said:
RVonse said:
ZiprHead said:
Derec said:
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Republicans. They consider asylum seekers to be illegals, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the Democrats too. It is criminal of them to protect and harbor other criminals in their safe cities. So either change the law so that these newcomers are not criminals or enforce the law and evict the criminals. You can not have a civilized society if you do not know what the rules really are.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the law pertaining to the bolded?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.
Harboring a fugitive is a criminal offense that involves knowingly providing assistance to an individual who has committed a crime and is attempting to evade arrest or prosecution by law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Oh, look. Perry Mason arrived.

No one is obligated to assist a law enforcement entity under penalty of law. No one is stopping the federal law enforcement. Did you get your juris doctorate at the 2+2=5 School Of Law?
Click to expand...
I think what's the issue here is that while you can't help a fugitive evade you can interact with them as you do with anyone else. And that's what sanctuary cities are doing--treating them the same as those legally here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom